Treating schools to a new administration Evidence from South Africa - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

6 June 2016 Stephen Taylor Martin Gustafsson Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch Department of Basic Education, SA government

Treating schools to a new administration

Evidence from South Africa of the impact of system-level administration on school performance

Rationale

• Skills not years of education NB for economic growth
• Low quality education in many developing countries, including

SA

• Lot of experimental studies measuring impact of various

resources and interventions

• Critiques of RCTs

– piecemeal interventions will not make enough of an impact on the gap – Replicability at scale by government (Bold, Sandefur, et al)

• We need to understand the contribution of system-level

administration and how to create system-level change (RISE)

• Some work explaining improvements in TIMSS or PISA (Bruns)
• But this is near impossible to measure applying standards of

the experimental literature

– SA vs Finland

A rare natural experiment

Methodology

• Boundary changes of 2005 – official transfer 2007
• Provincial education departments fulfil the key

administrative functions in SA

• Municipalities do not – the reasons for the

changes were not educational

• About 150 experimental schools
• Analyse secondary school leaving exam data

(2005 – 2013)

– Data aggregated at school-level

Data

We focus on mathematics outcomes

Data

Three selection effects at play: Selection into Grade 12 by not dropping out earlier. Selection into mathematics. Migration

Data

How much of a treat?

Results: Regression models

                   

        

2 2

2 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 2 , t p i t p i t p i t p i t g

E E E E 

i i n i g t gi t gi

u Z X E E ˆ ˆ ... ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ

3 2 1 , 1 2 ,

     

 

     

Results: Regression models

Remains significant if

• utcome is 2010,

2011, 2012 Distance up to 30km Lower for other indicators

Adding school fixed effects

Summary of fixed effects regressions with different endpoints

Summary of fixed effects regressions with different endpoints

Was migration driving the effects?

Note: Only schools remaining in North West and which moved to Gauteng are

• marked. Schools which were in Gauteng in all years are not marked.

How meaningful are these effect sizes?

• Overall, around 0.07 SD annually if translated

to student-level standard deviations

Best possible trajectories

0.08 SD per year

What explains the administration effect?

• Our analysis cannot say with empirical certainty
• Average public funding per student virtually the

same across provinces, so explanation not here.

• More efficient use of non-personnel funds,

especially for educational materials

• Brokering of pacts between stakeholders,

including teacher unions, schools and communities

• Better monitoring and support to schools from
• fficials
• Fixed term contracts for Gauteng management

Implications

• “What interventions?” is only part of the

question

• Rather, “Who intervenes”

– Link to coach-specific effect in RCUP

• But, replicating the “who” is harder than the

“what”

• Strong focus on improving administrative

functionality could be an effective way to effect large-scale change